Root of the Rico argument

Just because some doubt Garrett's game-day decisions, doesn't mean they should doubt his talent evaluation skills. Since Garrett took over the head coaching job, the entire front office philosophy on player acquisition changed. And the drafts have been among the best in the NFL. You can convince me that Garrett fails when it comes to managing games during the week. You CANNOT convince me that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it come to players talent and development.

That some cannot separate the two issues is indicative of their inability to think critically, not Garrett's inability to draft and develop players. Garrett developed the Oline, and the offense into one of the top offenses in the NFL. People claim Jerry "took away his playcalling authority" in 2013, but in actuality, what Jerry said was he wanted Garrett to focus his talents on player selection on the defense. Within a year, Garrett had dumped Ware, Hatcher and Ratliff, and began rebuilding the defense. He was stuck with Claiborne and Carr from the Rob Ryan Fiasco, but in 2014, he changed the team back to the 4-3 defense, and began overhauling the Dline. Since that time, he's drafted 6 defensive ends and a defensive tackle, and brought in several other Defensive tackles. He's focused on bringing in the right personnel to rebuild the defense from 2014-2017, the same way he focused on overhauling the offense from 2011-2014. From all appearances in preseason, that focus may result in a top 5 defense in 2018, the same way his focus on offense resulted in a top 5 offense in 2014.

Now, he's having to shift back to offense because some of the key pieces (Bryant, Witten, Free, Leary) went past their sell-by date. Bryant was planned for. Witten was a draft-day surprise.

But claiming Garrett doesn't know what to do with Rico as a player just fails to convince me. His track record of player selection and development, in coordination with Will McClay has been near the very top of the NFL in terms of results. I blame Jerry for not giving Garrett full control of the team until 2014. Garrett has his flaws managing tactics on game day. But his overall strategy for the team has been sound, and he's had a far higher success rate in the draft than most other NFL coaches. And that's why, in my opinion, Jerry trusts him. Despite the hiccups of the 2015 season, and the 4-game stretch last year, the Cowboys have been much more consistently good under Garrett than not.

The Cowboys now have one of the youngest teams in the NFL. That didn't happen by accident. They aren't perfect, but they're going to be good this season, on both sides of the ball. Injuries and bad luck can happen to any team, and only one of 32 teams will raise the trophy next February. The Cowboys are one of the teams in the hunt. Because of, not in spite of, Jason Garrett. The reality is that while I believe Garrett is a great architect of team building, he may not be the game day strategist that can take the Cowboys all the way. If that proves to be true, and Jerry ultimately fires him, whomever replaces Garrett will inherit a very talented team - much like Wade Phillips inherited the work of Bill Parcells in 2007.

I concur. Garret should be in the front office by the water cooler, discussing potential draft prospects with Will Mcclay; not on the field leading men at the front lines since he was never a TRUE football player to begin with. Just some smart nerd that got by on a little bit of athleticism.
 
garrett makes mistakes....but to want him fired and he sucks and a highschool coach is better than him is a joke and quite stupid statement onto itself....garett haters need to grow up a bit....then they will be taken more seriously
perhaps u should try to tell us what garrett adds.
if it is only talent acquisition, then he belongs in the front office, not the head coach.
 
we were in tech near silicon valley.
we either hired fresh from college or brought in top, recognized experts to bring in necessary expertise.
we avoided mid-level hires, particularly master-level people with less than 10 years of experience.
if we want long term loyalty, we hired fresh grads.
the mid-level hires were viewed as intellectual property risks that bring little value.
top experts that were brought in were given incentives to be loyal.
a lot of times we hired fresh out of college, but they hopped from job to job to fill their resume and get different experiences and get higher pay...pretty normal....there was no loyalty and I loved hiring people with 4-10 years of experience...

sorry my experience is quite different than yours. I work in technology and I work on the eat coast...not so sure about silicon valley...its a different culture and environment there. more start up mentality than anywhere else...perhaps part of the reason
 
I concur. Garret should be in the front office by the water cooler, discussing potential draft prospects with Will Mcclay; not on the field leading men at the front lines since he was never a TRUE football player to begin with. Just some smart nerd that got by on a little bit of athleticism.
dont insult nerds. he was probably one of the dumber people at princeton.
 
a lot of times we hired fresh out of college, but they hopped from job to job to fill their resume and get different experiences and get higher pay...pretty normal....there was no loyalty and I loved hiring people with 4-10 years of experience...

sorry my experience is quite different than yours. I work in technology and I work on the eat coast...not so sure about silicon valley...its a different culture and environment there. more start up mentality than anywhere else...perhaps part of the reason

yes, i concur that silicon valley is different.

we hired undergrads while they were in college.
actually not the top students, but 2nd tier.
we observe these interns for 1-2 years, preferably 2.
we keep the loyal ones when appropriate.
believe it or not, we never lost an employee we did not want to lose.

as a result, we were able to keep our technology proprietary for more than 10 years.
 
we were in tech near silicon valley.
we either hired fresh from college or brought in top, recognized experts to bring in necessary expertise.
we avoided mid-level hires, particularly master-level people with less than 10 years of experience.
if we want long term loyalty, we hired fresh grads.
the mid-level hires were viewed as intellectual property risks that bring little value.
top experts that were brought in were given incentives to be loyal.
So if you were having problems with employee loyalty, it would seem you have management or a CEO to blame?
 
when young employees think they got the screw in their first job, they often become jaded and bad employees for their future employers

And some young people always make excuses instead of taking responsibility for themselves.
 
perhaps u should try to tell us what garrett adds.
if it is only talent acquisition, then he belongs in the front office, not the head coach.
he has good talent evaluation...and despite everything garrett haters say, he has a winning record and 1-2 in playoffs. we all want more...but there are a lot of coaches who did a lot less than he has......but somehow the garrett haters don't want to acknowledge that.......is he the best...NO...is he the worst NO...is he average? he is defintley above....has he improved? yes.... do we expect more? yes.... has he made mistakes? yes......

but the one fact, the most important fact is that no one has been able to find any level of real success with Jerry jones, I think he has managed jerry as best possible and that's a hard thing to do....perhaps parcells was another HC we had that managed jerry to an extent.... no real good top notch coach would want to come here and work with jerry....so why do you think results would be any different with a new coach? while jerry is still in the picture?

thus I think garrett has exceeded expections working with Jerry. that's not easy to do. parcells literally quit after 4 years. other coaches got run over.....
 
So if you were having problems with employee loyalty, it would seem you have management or a CEO to blame?

no, we had no problem with loyalty.
we worked really hard to take preventive measures.
ip leaks are typical in silicon valley.
we managed to keep our secret sauce secret for more than 10 years.
that is very very rare in silicon valley.
 
so u were right on jaylon and wrong on gregory.
where were u on dlaw
I thought he was a good pick. dropped because of injuries but had the talent. I expect DEs taking a few years to learn their skills and we can see if they are good or not...except maybe top 5 picks.....

and again, I liked Gregory pick...high reward, low 2nd round pick....but I didn't think he would make a come back so quickly after two years out of football
 
he has good talent evaluation...and despite everything garrett haters say, he has a winning record and 1-2 in playoffs. we all want more...but there are a lot of coaches who did a lot less than he has......but somehow the garrett haters don't want to acknowledge that.......is he the best...NO...is he the worst NO...is he average? he is defintley above....has he improved? yes.... do we expect more? yes.... has he made mistakes? yes......

but the one fact, the most important fact is that no one has been able to find any level of real success with Jerry jones, I think he has managed jerry as best possible and that's a hard thing to do....perhaps parcells was another HC we had that managed jerry to an extent.... no real good top notch coach would want to come here and work with jerry....so why do you think results would be any different with a new coach? while jerry is still in the picture?

thus I think garrett has exceeded expections working with Jerry. that's not easy to do. parcells literally quit after 4 years. other coaches got run over.....

Parcells explained why he quit, and it didn't have anything to do with his relationship with Jerry. You must think Parcells is a liar.
 
dont insult nerds. he was probably one of the dumber people at princeton.

Well, smart enough to get through Princeton. That's has to count for something, right?

They sent Carlton Banks packing of all people, and he was probably the smartest kid in Bel Aire during the 90s.
 
when u r talking overall team building, what i say is true.
i think u would agree brady is an exception.
1st round picks have reasonably high failure rates historically, but much better than lower rounds.
agreed. usually 1st round picks are more athletic and have more stats and played in bigger programs (more often than not). they should have a lower failure rate than lower round players. but there are a lot of lower round players that do succeed. the rate is higher than you might think.
 
I thought he was a good pick. dropped because of injuries but had the talent. I expect DEs taking a few years to learn their skills and we can see if they are good or not...except maybe top 5 picks.....

and again, I liked Gregory pick...high reward, low 2nd round pick....but I didn't think he would make a come back so quickly after two years out of football

actually given ur preferences, i am surprised u do not like rico. low-investment high-risk player with potential. that seems ideal for a team who is not a superbowl favorite
 
yes, i concur that silicon valley is different.

we hired undergrads while they were in college.
actually not the top students, but 2nd tier.
we observe these interns for 1-2 years, preferably 2.
we keep the loyal ones when appropriate.
believe it or not, we never lost an employee we did not want to lose.

as a result, we were able to keep our technology proprietary for more than 10 years.
I am not as familiar with silicon valley, which like I said, its more about startups and newer technology...I am in DC area and was in NY before, and having knowledge and experience counted for a lot, given we worked with Finance companies (wall street) and government.
 
agreed. usually 1st round picks are more athletic and have more stats and played in bigger programs (more often than not). they should have a lower failure rate than lower round players. but there are a lot of lower round players that do succeed. the rate is higher than you might think.

this is based on many years of stats for drafting multi-year starters
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,354
Messages
14,532,137
Members
24,210
Latest member
Jtom95
Back
Top